Características epidemiológicas y desenlaces de la infección por SARS-CoV-2 en pacientes con patologías reumáticas: primer reporte del registro argentino SAR-COVID

Con el fin de evaluar el impacto de la infección por SARS-CoV-2 en pacientes con enfermedades reumáticas, la Sociedad Argentina de Reumatología desarrolló el Registro Nacional de Pacientes con Enfermedades Reumáticas y COVID-19 (SAR-COVID). El objetivo del presente trabajo fue evaluar las características sociodemográficas y clínicas de los pacientes con enfermedades reumáticas e infección por SARS-CoV-2 incluidos en el registro SAR-COVID y describir las complicaciones y desenlaces de la COVID-19 en esta población. Material y métodos: SAR-COVID es un registro nacional, multicéntrico y observacional, en el cual se incluyen de manera consecutiva pacientes ≥18 años de edad, con diagnóstico de alguna enfermedad reumática que hayan cursado infección por SARS-CoV-2. Se consignan datos sociodemográficos, comorbilidades, enfermedad reumática y su tratamiento, características clínicas, laboratorio, complicaciones y tratamientos de la infección por SARS-CoV-2. Resultados: se incluyeron 525 pacientes, con una edad media de 51.3 años (DE 15.2). Las enfermedades reumatológicas más frecuentes fueron artritis reumatoidea (40.4%), lupus eritematoso sistémico (14.9%) y espondiloartritis (8.2%). El 72.9% recibía tratamiento inmunosupresor o inmunomodulador al momento del inicio de la infección y 36.9% glucocorticoides. En la mayoría de los casos, el diagnóstico de infección por SARS-CoV-2 se llevó a cabo mediante RT-PCR (95%), 39.4% en la consulta externa, 32.2% en el departamento de urgencias, y 14.7% durante la hospitalización. La mayoría de los pacientes presentaron síntomas, siendo los más frecuentes fiebre (56.2%), tos (46.7%) y cefalea (39.2%). Durante la infección, 35.1% requirieron hospitalización y 11.6% en unidad de cuidados intensivos. El 75.1% se recuperó completamente, 8.4% presentó secuelas y 6.9% murieron a causa de COVID-19. Conclusión: en este primer reporte del registro SAR-COVID encontramos una amplia distribución de enfermedades reumáticas. La mayoría de los pacientes tuvieron una buena evolución de la infección, sin embargo un 7% falleció como consecuencia de la misma, datos comparables a los reportados por otros registros latinoamericanos con poblaciones similares

Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 Third Vaccine in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Had No Seroconversion After Primary 2-Dose Regimen With Inactivated or Vector-Based Vaccines

Objective. The aim of this study was to assess the immune response after a third dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with undetectable antibody titers after the primary regimen of 2 doses. Methods. Patients with RA with no seroconversion after 2 doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and who received a third dose of either an mRNA or vector-based vaccine were included. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies, neutralizing activity, and T cell responses were assessed after the third dose. Results. A total of 21 nonresponder patients were included. At the time of vaccination, 29% were receiving glucocorticoids and 85% biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (including 6 taking abatacept [ABA] and 4 taking rituximab [RTX]). The majority (95%) received the BNT162b2 vaccine and only one of them received the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. After the third dose, 91% of the patients presented detectable anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and 76% showed neutralizing activity. Compared to other treatments, ABA and RTX were associated with the absence of neutralizing activity in 4 out of 5 (80%) patients and lower titers of neutralizing antibodies (median 3, IQR 0-20 vs 8, IQR 4-128; P = 0.20). Specific T cell response was detected in 41% of all patients after the second dose, increasing to 71% after the third dose. The use of ABA was associated with a lower frequency of T cell response (33% vs 87%, P = 0.03). Conclusion. In this RA cohort, 91% of patients who failed to seroconvert after 2 doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine presented detectable anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG after a third dose. The use of ABA was associated with a lower frequency of specific T cell response.Fil: Isnardi, Carolina A.. No especifíca;Fil: Cerda, Osvaldo L.. No especifíca;Fil: Landi, Margarita. Austral University Hospital; LiberiaFil: Cruces, Leonel Hernán. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirus y Sida. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirus y Sida; ArgentinaFil: Schneeberger, Emilce E.. No especifíca;Fil: Montoro, Claudia Calle. Austral University Hospital; LiberiaFil: Alfaro, María Agustina. No especifíca;Fil: Roldán, Brian M.. No especifíca;Fil: Gómez Vara, Andrea B.. No especifíca;Fil: Giorgis, Pamela. No especifíca;Fil: Ezquer, Roberto Alejandro. No especifíca;Fil: Crespo Rocha, María G. No especifíca;Fil: Reyes Gómez, Camila R.. No especifíca;Fil: de Los Ángeles Correa, Mária. No especifíca;Fil: Rosemffet, Marcos G.. No especifíca;Fil: Abarza, Virginia Carrizo. No especifíca;Fil: Pellet, Santiago Catalan. Austral University Hospital; LiberiaFil: Perandones, Miguel. No especifíca;Fil: Reimundes, Cecilia. Austral University Hospital; LiberiaFil: Longueira, Yesica Soledad. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirus y Sida. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirus y Sida; ArgentinaFil: Turk, Gabriela Julia Ana. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirus y Sida. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirus y Sida; ArgentinaFil: Quiroga, María Florencia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirus y Sida. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirus y Sida; ArgentinaFil: Laufer, Natalia Lorna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirus y Sida. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirus y Sida; ArgentinaFil: Quintana, Rosana Maris. No especifíca;Fil: de la Vega, María Celina. No especifíca;Fil: Kreplak, Nicolás. No especifíca;Fil: Pifano, Marina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Maid, Pablo. Austral University Hospital; LiberiaFil: Pons Estel, Guillermo J.. No especifíca;Fil: Citera, Gustavo. No especifíca

Sobrevida, eficacia y seguridad de Golimumab en pacientes con Artritis Reumatoidea y Espondiloartritis: datos de una cohorte argentina

Objetivos: golimumab ha sido aprobado para el tratamiento de pacientes con artritis reumatoidea (AR), artritis psoriásica (APs) y espondiloartritis axial. Sin embargo, los datos provenientes de nuestra región son escasos. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la eficacia, seguridad y sobrevida acumulada de golimumab en pacientes de la vida real con AR, APs y espondilitis anquilosante (EA) de diferentes centros de Argentina. Material y métodos: se llevó a cabo un estudio longitudinal, en el que se incluyeron pacientes consecutivos mayores de 18 años con diagnóstico de AR (criterios ACR/EULAR 2010), APs (critertios CASPAR) y Espax (criterios ASAS 2009), que hayan iniciado tratamiento con golimumab de acuerdo a la indicación médica. Se obtuvieron los datos por revisión de historias clínicas. Se consignaron características sociodemográficas, clínicas, comorbilidades y tratamientos previos. Con respecto al golimumab, se registraron fecha de inicio, vía de administración y tratamientos concomitantes. Se determinó la actividad de la enfermedad mediante DAS28 en el caso de la AR, por DAPSA y MDA para APs y por BASDAI en el caso de Espax. Se consignó la presencia de eventos adversos (EA). En el caso de suspensión del tratamiento, se identificaron la fecha y motivo del mismo. Los pacientes fueron seguidos hasta la suspensión del golimumab, pérdida de seguimiento, muerte, o finalización del estudio (30 de noviembre de 2020). Resultados: se incluyeron 182 pacientes, 116 con diagnóstico de AR, 30 con APs y 36 con Espax. La mayoría de ellos (70.9%) eran mujeres con una edad mediana (m) de 55 años (RIC 43.8-64) y una duración de la enfermedad m de 7 años (RIC 4-12.7) al inicio del tratamiento. El 34.6% de los mismos habían recibido al menos una droga modificadora de la enfermedad (DME) biológica (-b) o sintética dirigida (-sd) previamente. El seguimiento total fue de 318.1 pacientes/año. El tratamiento con golimumab mostró mejoría clínica en los tres grupos de pacientes. La incidencia de eventos adversos fue de 6.6 por 100 pacientes/año, siendo las infecciones las más frecuentes. Durante el seguimiento, 50 pacientes (27.5%) suspendieron golimumab, la causa más frecuente fue el fracaso del tratamiento (68%), seguida de la falta de cobertura (16%) y el desarrollo de eventos adversos (10%). La persistencia de golimumab fue del 76% y 68% a los 12 y 24 meses, respectivamente. Se registró una sobrevida de 50.2 meses (IC 95% 44.4-55.9). Los pacientes que habían recibido tratamiento previo con DME-b y/o -sd mostraron una menor sobrevida (HR 2.4, IC 95% 1.3-4.4). Conclusiones: el tratamiento con golimumab en pacientes de la vida real en Argentina ha demostrado una buena eficacia y seguridad. La sobrevida del fármaco fue de más de 4 años y casi el 80% seguía usando golimumab después de un año. El tratamiento previo con otros DME-b o -sd se asoció con una menor sobrevida al tratamiento

Results From the Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry

Funding Information: We acknowledge financial support from the ACR and EULAR. The ACR and EULAR were not involved in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Authors. ACR Open Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.Objective: Some patients with rheumatic diseases might be at higher risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to develop a prediction model for COVID-19 ARDS in this population and to create a simple risk score calculator for use in clinical settings. Methods: Data were derived from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry from March 24, 2020, to May 12, 2021. Seven machine learning classifiers were trained on ARDS outcomes using 83 variables obtained at COVID-19 diagnosis. Predictive performance was assessed in a US test set and was validated in patients from four countries with independent registries using area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. A simple risk score calculator was developed using a regression model incorporating the most influential predictors from the best performing classifier. Results: The study included 8633 patients from 74 countries, of whom 523 (6%) had ARDS. Gradient boosting had the highest mean AUC (0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-0.88) and was considered the top performing classifier. Ten predictors were identified as key risk factors and were included in a regression model. The regression model that predicted ARDS with 71% (95% CI: 61%-83%) sensitivity in the test set, and with sensitivities ranging from 61% to 80% in countries with independent registries, was used to develop the risk score calculator. Conclusion: We were able to predict ARDS with good sensitivity using information readily available at COVID-19 diagnosis. The proposed risk score calculator has the potential to guide risk stratification for treatments, such as monoclonal antibodies, that have potential to reduce COVID-19 disease progression.publishersversionepub_ahead_of_prin

Associations of baseline use of biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs with COVID-19 severity in rheumatoid arthritis : Results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry

Funding Information: Competing interests JAS is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Funding Information: Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (grant numbers K23 AR069688, R03 AR075886, L30 AR066953, P30 AR070253 and P30 AR072577), the Rheumatology Research Foundation (K Supplement Award and R Bridge Award), the Brigham Research Institute, and the R Bruce and Joan M Mickey Research Scholar Fund. JAS has received research support from Amgen and Bristol-Myers Squibb and performed consultancy for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova, Janssen and Optum, unrelated to this work. ZSW reports grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia/ Sanofi and performed consultancy for Viela Bio and MedPace, outside the submitted work. His work is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. MG is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (grant numbers K01 AR070585 and K24 AR074534; JY). KLH reports she has received speaker’s fees from AbbVie and grant income from BMS, UCB and Pfizer, all unrelated to this study. KLH is also supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. LC has not received fees or personal grants from any laboratory, but her institute works by contract for laboratories such as, among other institutions, AbbVie Spain, Eisai, Gebro Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme España, Novartis Farmaceutica, Pfizer, Roche Farma, Sanofi Aventis, Astellas Pharma, Actelion Pharmaceuticals España, Grünenthal and UCB Pharma. LG reports research grants from Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz and Sanofi; consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Biogen, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi Aventis and UCB, all unrelated to this study. EFM reports that LPCDR received support for specific activities: grants from AbbVie, Novartis, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly Portugal, Sanofi, Grünenthal, MSD, Celgene, Medac, Pharma Kern and GAfPA; grants and non-financial support from Pfizer; and non-financial support from Grünenthal, outside the submitted work. AS reports grants from a consortium of 13 companies (among them AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Lilly, Mylan, Hexal, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi Aventis and UCB) supporting the German RABBIT register, and personal fees from lectures for AbbVie, MSD, Roche, BMS and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. AD-G has no disclosures relevant to this study. His work is supported by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. KMD is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (T32-AR-007258) and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. NJP is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (T32-AR-007258). PD has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai and Pfizer, and performed consultancy for Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Sanofi, Pfizer, Chugai, Roche and Janssen, unrelated to this work. NS is supported by the RRF Investigator Award and the American Heart Association. MFU-G reports grant support from Janssen and Pfizer. SB reports no competing interests related to this work. He reports non-branded consulting fees for AbbVie, Horizon, Novartis and Pfizer (all <$10 000). RG reports no competing interests related to this work. Outside of this work she reports personal and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and Cornerstones, and travel assistance from Pfizer (all <$10 000). JH reports no competing interests related to this work. He is supported by grants from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance. He has performed consulting for Novartis, Sobi and Biogen, all unrelated to this work (<$10 000). JL has received research funding from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. ES is a Board Member of the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, a patient-run, volunteer-based organisation whose activities are largely supported by independent grants from pharmaceutical companies. PS reports no competing interests related to this work. He reports honorarium for doing social media for American College of Rheumatology journals (<$10 000). PMM has received consulting/speaker’s fees from AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, all unrelated to this study (all <$10 000). PMM is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). PCR reports no competing interests related to this work. Outside of this work he reports personal consulting and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, and travel assistance from Roche (all <$10 000). JY reports no competing interests related to this work. Her work is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. She has performed consulting for Eli Lilly and AstraZeneca, unrelated to this project. Publisher Copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Objective To investigate baseline use of biologic or targeted synthetic (b/ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods We analysed the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry (from 24 March 2020 to 12 April 2021). We investigated b/tsDMARD use for RA at the clinical onset of COVID-19 (baseline): abatacept (ABA), rituximab (RTX), Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), interleukin 6 inhibitors (IL-6i) or tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi, reference group). The ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome was (1) no hospitalisation, (2) hospitalisation without oxygen, (3) hospitalisation with oxygen/ventilation or (4) death. We used ordinal logistic regression to estimate the OR (odds of being one level higher on the ordinal outcome) for each drug class compared with TNFi, adjusting for potential baseline confounders. Results Of 2869 people with RA (mean age 56.7 years, 80.8% female) on b/tsDMARD at the onset of COVID-19, there were 237 on ABA, 364 on RTX, 317 on IL-6i, 563 on JAKi and 1388 on TNFi. Overall, 613 (21%) were hospitalised and 157 (5.5%) died. RTX (OR 4.15, 95% CI 3.16 to 5.44) and JAKi (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.65) were each associated with worse COVID-19 severity compared with TNFi. There were no associations between ABA or IL6i and COVID-19 severity. Conclusions People with RA treated with RTX or JAKi had worse COVID-19 severity than those on TNFi. The strong association of RTX and JAKi use with poor COVID-19 outcomes highlights prioritisation of risk mitigation strategies for these people.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Obstetric Outcomes in Women with Rheumatic Disease and COVID-19 in the Context of Vaccination Status

OBJECTIVE: To describe obstetric outcomes based on COVID-19 vaccination status, in women with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) who developed COVID-19 during pregnancy. METHODS: Data regarding pregnant women entered into the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry from 24 March 2020-25 February 2022 were analysed. Obstetric outcomes were stratified by number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received prior to COVID-19 infection in pregnancy. Descriptive differences between groups were tested using the chi -square or Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: There were 73 pregnancies in 73 women with RMD and COVID-19. Overall, 24.7% (18) of pregnancies were ongoing, while of the 55 completed pregnancies 90.9% (50) of pregnancies resulted in livebirths. At the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, 60.3% (n = 44) of women were unvaccinated, 4.1% (n = 3) had received one vaccine dose while 35.6% (n = 26) had two or more doses. Although 83.6% (n = 61) of women required no treatment for COVID-19, 20.5% (n = 15) required hospital admission. COVID-19 resulted in delivery in 6.8% (n = 3) of unvaccinated women and 3.8% (n = 1) of fully vaccinated women. There was a greater number of preterm births (PTB) in unvaccinated women compared with fully vaccinated 29.5% (n = 13) vs 18.2%(n = 2). CONCLUSION: In this descriptive study, unvaccinated pregnant women with RMD and COVID-19 had a greater number of PTB compared with those fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Additionally, the need for COVID-19 pharmacological treatment was uncommon in pregnant women with RMD regardless of vaccination status. These results support active promotion of COVID-19 vaccination in women with RMD who are pregnant or planning a pregnancy

Seguridad de las drogas biológicas y sintéticas dirigidas utilizadas en pacientes con enfermedades reumáticas inmunomediadas. Datos del registro BIOBADASAR 3.0

Introducción: conocer la seguridad de las drogas actualmente disponibles para el tratamiento de las enfermedades reumáticas es muy importante al momento de tomar decisiones terapéuticas objetivas e individualizadas en la consulta médica diaria. Asimismo, datos de la vida real amplían el conocimiento revelado por los ensayos clínicos. Objetivos: describir los eventos adversos (EA) reportados, estimar su frecuencia e identificar los factores relacionados con su desarrollo. Materiales y métodos: se utilizaron datos BIOBADASAR, un registro voluntario y prospectivo de seguimiento de EA de tratamientos biológicos y sintéticos dirigidos en pacientes con enfermedades reumáticas inmunomediadas. Los pacientes son seguidos hasta la muerte, pérdida de seguimiento o retiro del consentimiento informado. Para este análisis se extrajeron datos recopilados hasta el 31 de enero de 2023. Resultados: se incluyó un total de 6253 pacientes, los cuales aportaron 9533 ciclos de tratamiento, incluyendo 3647 (38,3%) ciclos sin drogas modificadoras de la enfermedad biológicas y sintéticas dirigidas (DME-b/sd) y 5886 (61,7%) con DME-b/sd. Dentro de estos últimos, los más utilizados fueron los inhibidores de TNF y abatacept. Se reportaron 5890 EA en un total de 2701 tratamientos (844 y 1857 sin y con DME-b/sd, respectivamente), con una incidencia de 53,9 eventos cada 1000 pacientes/año (IC 95% 51,9-55,9). La misma fue mayor en los ciclos con DME-b/sd (71,1 eventos cada 1000 pacientes/año, IC 95% 70,7-77,5 versus 33,7, IC 95% 31,5-36,1; p<0,001). Las infecciones, particularmente las de la vía aérea superior, fueron los EA más frecuentes en ambos grupos. El 10,9% fue serio y el 1,1% provocó la muerte del paciente. El 18,7% de los ciclos con DME-b/sd fue discontinuado a causa de un EA, significativamente mayor a lo reportado en el otro grupo (11,5%; p<0,001). En el análisis ajustado, las DME-b/sd se asociaron a mayor riesgo de presentar al menos un EA (HR 1,82, IC 95% 1,64-1,96). De igual manera, la mayor edad, el mayor tiempo de evolución, el antecedente de enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica, el diagnóstico de lupus eritematoso sistémico y el uso de corticoides se asociaron a mayor riesgo de EA. Conclusiones: la incidencia de EA fue significativamente superior durante los ciclos de tratamientos que incluían DME-b/sd

Humoral and T‐cell response to SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the SARS-CoV-2–specific humoral and T cell response after a two-dose regimen of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: In this observational study, patients with RA who are ≥18 years of age and vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2 according to the Argentine National Health Ministry's vaccination strategy were included. Anti–SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies (ELISA-COVIDAR test), neutralizing activity (cytotoxicity in VERO cells), and specific T cell response (IFN-γ ELISpot Assay) were assessed after the first and second dose. Results: A total of 120 patients with RA were included. Mostly, homologous regimens were used, including Gam-COVID-Vac (27.5%), ChAdOx1 (24.2%), and BBIBP-CorV (22.5%). The most frequent combination was Gam-COVID-Vac/mRNA-1273 (21.7%). After the second dose, 81.7% presented with anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, 70.0% presented with neutralizing activity, and 65.3% presented with specific T cell response. The use of BBIBP-CorV and treatment with abatacept (ABA) and rituximab (RTX) were associated with undetectable antibodies and no neutralizing activity after two doses. BBIBP-CorV was also associated with the absence of T cell response. The total incidence of adverse events was 357.1 events per 1,000 doses, significantly lower with BBIBP-CorV (166.7 events per 1,000 doses, P < 0.02). Conclusion: In this RA cohort vaccinated with homologous and heterologous regimens against COVID-19, 2 out of 10 patients did not develop anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, 70% presented with neutralizing activity, and 65% presented with specific T cell response. The use of BBIBP-CorV was associated with deficient humoral and cellular response, whereas treatment with ABA and RTX resulted in an impaired anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG formation and neutralizing activity.Fil: Isnardi, Carolina A.. Sociedad Argentina de Reumatología; ArgentinaFil: Landi, Margarita. Sociedad Argentina de Reumatología; ArgentinaFil: Cruces, Leonel Hernán. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirus y Sida. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirus y Sida; ArgentinaFil: Maid, Pablo. Universidad Austral. Hospital Universitario Austral; ArgentinaFil: Calle Montoro, Claudia. Universidad Austral. Hospital Universitario Austral; ArgentinaFil: Alfaro, María A.. Gobierno de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Rehabilitación Psicofísica; ArgentinaFil: Roldán, Brian M.. Gobierno de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Rehabilitación Psicofísica; ArgentinaFil: Gómez Vara, Andrea B.. Gobierno de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Rehabilitación Psicofísica; ArgentinaFil: Giorgis, Pamela. Gobierno de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Rehabilitación Psicofísica; ArgentinaFil: Ezquer, Roberto A.. Gobierno de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Rehabilitación Psicofísica; ArgentinaFil: Crespo Rocha, María G.. Gobierno de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Rehabilitación Psicofísica; ArgentinaFil: Reyes Gómez, Camila R.. Gobierno de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Rehabilitación Psicofísica; ArgentinaFil: Correa, María Á.. Gobierno de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Rehabilitación Psicofísica; ArgentinaFil: Cerda, Osvaldo L.. Gobierno de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Rehabilitación Psicofísica; ArgentinaFil: Rosemffet, Marcos G.. Gobierno de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Rehabilitación Psicofísica; ArgentinaFil: Carrizo Abarza, Virginia. Gobierno de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Rehabilitación Psicofísica; ArgentinaFil: Catalan Pellet, Santiago. Universidad Austral. Hospital Universitario Austral; ArgentinaFil: Perandones, Miguel. Gobierno de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Rehabilitación Psicofísica; ArgentinaFil: Reimundes, Cecilia. Universidad Austral. Hospital Universitario Austral; ArgentinaFil: Longueira, Yesica Soledad. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirus y Sida. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirus y Sida; ArgentinaFil: Turk, Gabriela Julia Ana. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirus y Sida. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirus y Sida; ArgentinaFil: Quiroga, María Florencia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirus y Sida. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirus y Sida; ArgentinaFil: Laufer, Natalia Lorna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirus y Sida. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirus y Sida; ArgentinaFil: de la Vega, María Cecilia. Gobierno de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Rehabilitación Psicofísica; ArgentinaFil: Citera, Gustavo. Gobierno de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Rehabilitación Psicofísica; ArgentinaFil: Pons Estel, Guillermo J.. Gobierno de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Rehabilitación Psicofísica; ArgentinaFil: Schneeberger, Emilce E.. Gobierno de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Rehabilitación Psicofísica; Argentin

Does the Use of Immunosuppressive Drugs Impact on SARS-CoV-2 Infection Outcome? Data From A National Cohort of Patients With Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases (SAR-COVID Registry)

Background/objectiveThis study describes the impact of immunomodulatory and/or immunosuppressive (IM/IS) drugs in the outcomes of COVID-19 infection in a cohort of patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs).MethodsAdult patients with IMIDs with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Data were reported by the treating physician between August 13, 2020 and July 31, 2021. Sociodemographic data, comorbidities, and DMARDs, as well as clinical characteristics, complications, and treatment of the SARS-CoV-2 infection, were recorded. Descriptive analysis and multivariable logistic regression models were carried out.ResultsA total of 1672 patients with IMIDs were included, of whom 1402 were treated with IM/IS drugs. The most frequent diseases were rheumatoid arthritis (47.7%) and systemic lupus erythematosus (18.4%). COVID-19 symptoms were present in 95.2% of the patients. A total of 461 (27.6%) patients were hospitalized, 8.2% were admitted to the intensive care unit, and 4.4% died due to COVID-19.Patients without IM/IS treatment used glucocorticoids less frequently but at higher doses, had higher levels of disease activity, were significantly older, were more frequently hospitalized, admitted to the intensive care unit, and died due to COVID-19. After adjusting for these factors, treatment with IM/IS drugs was not associated with a worse COVID-19 outcome (World Health Organization-Ordinal Scale ≥5) (odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-2.06).ConclusionsSAR-COVID is the first multicenter Argentine registry collecting data from patients with rheumatic diseases and SARS-CoV-2 infection. After adjusting for relevant covariates, treatment with IM/IS drugs was not associated with severe COVID-19 in patients with IMIDs.Study registrationThis study has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov under the number NCT04568421